5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Tbilisi.
6.  On 13 May 2004 at around 10 p.m. the applicant, who was apparently being sought by the Ministry of State Security, was leaving Georgia through the Vale border checkpoint when he was stopped by officers of the border police and subjected to a strip search. His luggage was also searched. No illegal objects or substances were found. The applicant’s papers were also legal and in order. Nonetheless, the applicant was detained and the State Security Ministry was informed accordingly.
7.  While waiting for the Ministry officials to arrive at the border, the applicant was kept in the house of the head of the border police in Akhaltsikhe, the capital of the region, about thirty kilometres from the border. He was not under formal arrest at that point. The representatives of the Ministry of State Security arrived on 14 May 2004 at around 5.10 a.m., and an official document on the applicant’s handover was subsequently drawn up by the representatives of both authorities.
8.  At an unspecified location, on 14 May 2004 at 7.20 a.m., the officials of the Ministry of State Security proceeded to search the applicant again. According to the report drawn up at the time, the second search took place at the Vale border checkpoint and an illegal substance was discovered in the applicant’s luggage. An arrest report was drawn up.
9.  Later on 14 May 2004, with his lawyer present, the applicant was charged with buying, handling and illegally transporting 0.06 grams of heroin. The decision to bring charges against the applicant indicates that he claimed that no drugs had been found during the search.
10.  On 16 May 2004 the applicant’s lawyer gathered written statements from various guards and other agents of the border police who had been present during the applicant’s arrest at the Vale checkpoint. They all confirmed that no illegal objects or substances had been found during the first search carried out on the applicant at the checkpoint (see paragraph 6 above).
11.  On 16 May 2004 the Adigeni Court of First Instance decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention for three months. This decision was upheld by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 2 June 2004. The Regional Court gave as the main reason for its decision, after replying to each of the arguments mentioned in the applicant’s appeal against the previous court decision, the risk of absconding which followed from the applicant’s attempt to cross the border with Turkey without permission; thus, the court cited as a fact that the applicant had been placed by a court order under compulsory psychiatric treatment since 20 January 2005 in relation to unrelated criminal proceedings for murder, and thus had no right to leave the country without the consent of the relevant medical institution.
12.  It is not clear from the case file which custodial institution the applicant was placed in at that time.
13.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an application with the investigator in charge of the case to have evidence heard from Mr N.N., who had been cited as a witness in the police report of the search during which the heroin had supposedly been found by the officials of the Ministry of State Security. According to both Mr N.N. and his wife, he had spent the entire night in question at home and had not witnessed any kind of search by Ministry officials.
14.  On 13 August 2004 the Tbilisi Regional Court extended the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 14 September 2004. In the reasoning part of the decision, the court stated “in view of the particular gravity of the charge, the applicant may impede the establishment of the truth, abscond or continue his criminal activities”.
15.  On 13 September 2004 the Tbilisi Regional Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two months. The court gave two reasons for its decision: the gravity of the charge and the need to conduct a forensic psychiatric assessment of the applicant to establish whether he could be held responsible for the impugned offence.
16.  On 13 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Georgia decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 14 January 2005. The Supreme Court stated that in view of the particular gravity of the charge against the applicant, it was reasonable to assume that he could abscond or impede the establishment of the truth; additional time was necessary for the conduct of a number of unspecified investigative measures.
17.  On 17 November 2004 the applicant was placed in cell no. 99 of Tbilisi Prison No. 5.
18.  On 20 November 2004 the applicant was transferred to the medical wing of the same prison, cell 123, where he stayed, under the constant supervision of medical personnel, until his release on 3 May 2005 (see paragraph 20 below).
19.  The trial started before the Aspindza District Court on 13 January 2005, during which the border police officers asserted that no illegal objects or substances had been found during the search at the Vale checkpoint and that the applicant had not been subjected to another search before being handed over to the officials of the Ministry of State Security who had come for him from Tbilisi. The State Security Ministry officials who had signed the report on the second search were called upon to identify Mr N.N., whom they had allegedly asked to be a witness. None of them was able to identify him.
20.  On 3 May 2005 the Aspindza Court acquitted the applicant and ordered his immediate release. The prosecutor’s office appealed against the judgment. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 20 September 2006.
21.  On 9 May 2005 an officer of the Ministry of the Interior reported to his superiors that he had discovered incidentally, during the telephone tapping he had been carrying out in connection with unrelated criminal proceedings, that the applicant might be a drug addict, keeping heroin in his home for resale. On the same day, proceedings for a drug offence were instituted.
22.  By an order dated 11 May 2005, the Tbilisi City Court, having regard to the above-mentioned information, authorised the police to conduct a personal search of the applicant as well as of his domicile.
23.  On 12 May 2005 the investigators in charge of the newly instituted drugs case issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant as an accused.
24.  On 12 May 2005 an arrest operation was carried out at the applicant’s home. The investigators, accompanied by members of the special forces wearing balaclavas, shot their way into the house. They searched the premises and arrested the applicant at 2.20 p.m. They then proceeded to strip-search him between 2.30 and 2.40 p.m. The police report of the arrest states that the applicant had an injury to his forehead because he had resisted the police officers and the use of force had become necessary. During the strip search, 1.44 grams of heroin were found in the applicant’s pyjama pocket. The search of the house took place between 2.30 and 3.20 p.m. Two unused syringes and a blackened spoon were seized.
25.  The applicant produced a video recording of the operation. It showed around ten or more police officers entering the applicant’s house firing shots and the applicant being arrested and handcuffed with his hands behind his back. The recording does not show the alleged beating; however, it can be seen that before the strip search began the applicant had an open wound on his forehead. A police officer informed the applicant of the court decision of 11 May 2005 authorising the search of his home and the strip search. He asked the applicant if he was in possession of any illegal items. The applicant consented to being strip searched and answered that he “was not in possession of anything illegal, unless they themselves had brought along something of the sort”. The house was searched from top to bottom (drawers, boxes, bags, wardrobes and handbags were opened, mattresses were overturned, and so on). A blackened spoon was discovered in the bathroom, behind the toilet. Only the applicant’s wife was present during the search. She was not present during the strip search carried out on her husband, who called to her at the end: “Girl, they’ve planted drugs in my pocket”. The applicant’s wife screamed that the police were unscrupulous and went to call a lawyer.
26.  On 12 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigator in charge of the case, stating that he had resisted the fifteen State agents who had burst into his house only when one of them had attempted to slip heroin into his pocket. He had then been beaten with rifle butts. He requested a medical examination, claiming that he was in pain all over his body.
27.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor from the detention unit of the Ministry of the Interior, who found bruises on his forehead, around his eyes and under his left armpit. He noted that the applicant had sore ribs, that he was complaining of being sore all over and that he claimed to be suffering from hepatitis and drug addiction.
28.  On 13 May 2005, with his two lawyers present, the applicant was charged with concealing drugs.
29.  On 14 May 2005 the Tbilisi Regional Court upheld the legality of the records of the search of the applicant’s home and the strip search of 12 May 2005.
30.  On 15 May 2005 the Tbilisi City Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention; this decision is not included in the case file. He was then placed in cell 123 of the medical wing of Tbilisi Prison No. 5, where he started receiving treatment for his symptoms under the supervision of medical specialists.
31.  On 19 May 2005 the Tbilisi Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 May 2005 on the grounds that, in view of all of the documents in the case file, it was reasonable to suspect the applicant of having committed the acts of which he was accused, that he was accused of a particularly serious crime, and that there had been no violation of his procedural rights.
32.  On 18 May 2005 an independent medical examination was carried out at the request of the applicant’s lawyers. According to the medical report, the applicant was suffering from headaches and pains in the chest and back, and had trouble keeping his balance because of dizziness. Chest pain prevented him from breathing normally. The applicant had bruises on his left eye, a bruise measuring 2.5 cm by 0.2-0.3 cm under his right eye, an open wound and bruises on the right-hand side of his forehead (one of which measured 2 cm by 1.5 cm). He also had bruises measuring 3.5 cm by 2.5 cm and 3 cm by 0.3 cm on the left-hand side of his forehead, as well as bruises around his fifth, sixth and seventh ribs on the left side, measuring 6 cm by 0.2-03 cm, 5 cm by 0.3-0.4 cm and 6 cm by 0.2-0.3 cm. The applicant had trouble walking, as he was suffering from intense pain in his left buttock. The expert considered that the injuries could date back to 12 May 2005 and could have been inflicted in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. The medical report contains numerous photographs of the applicant and records the above-mentioned injuries.
33.  On 6 June 2005 the lawyers requested that the court order a psychiatric report to ascertain whether the applicant could be held responsible for his actions at the material time.
34.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant was examined by a medical assessment panel which found that he was suffering from chronic hepatitis C (HCV), a cerebral syndrome from a previous head injury and chronic inflammation of the gall bladder.
35.  The case file shows that since 1981 the applicant had been undergoing treatment by doctors from his local psychiatric hospital. According to expert reports from 1984-87, he was not responsible for his actions at that time and was suffering from a personality disorder, compounded by a head injury and psychosis. He was subsequently admitted to hospital on numerous occasions and even underwent compulsory treatment in a secure psychiatric institution on the basis of court decisions issued in 1997 and on 12 December 2002. The compulsory treatment ordered on the latter date lasted until 20 January 2004. As reported in an expert opinion dated 17 November 2004, the applicant was suffering from a severe personality disorder, compounded by a head injury and psychotic tendencies.
36.  On 3 August 2005 expert psychiatrists, commissioned by the investigation, assessed the applicant’s mental health. The experts confirmed the medical diagnosis of 17 November 2004, adding that the applicant had been partially responsible for his actions at the material time.
37.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant was placed, on the basis of a medical opinion, in the prison hospital, where he received appropriate treatment for headaches, insomnia and depression. He also underwent a complete haematological staging in order to have his HCV activity monitored.
38.  On 29 June 2005 the Tbilisi City Prosecutor’s Office, allowing the applicant’s criminal complaint of 28 June 2005, launched an investigation of allegations of abuse of power and disproportionate use of force by agents of the Ministry of the Interior during the applicant’s arrest on 12 May 2005. After interviewing the applicant, his wife and witnesses on his behalf, who had been guests at the applicant’s house on 12 May 2005 when the police arrived, as well as the law-enforcement officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest, examined the results of the medical examination of 18 May 2005 and conducted certain other investigative measures, the prosecuting authority decided, in a resolution of 29 December 2005, to abandon the investigation, as no criminal acts had been found to have been committed by the Ministry’s agents. Notably, the prosecuting authority concluded that the minor injuries that the applicant had sustained during the arrest resulted from his own resistance to the police’s lawful orders in an attempt to abscond, and that the agents had not exceeded their official duties, but had used force which was proportionate in the circumstances, falling within the margins prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Police Act and the Criminal Code.
39.  As was mentioned in the operative part of the prosecutorial resolution of 29 December 2005, a further appeal lay against it, pursuant to Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the Tbilisi Court of Appeal within fifteen days of delivery of the resolution to the parties. However, according to the case file, the applicant, having received the resolution, did not lodge an appeal against it.
40.  In the evening of 17 January 2006 the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital for a second psychiatric assessment, which was supposed to last fifteen days, but on 20 January 2006 he was discharged early and sent back to Tbilisi Prison no. 7.
41.  On 20 July 2006 the Rustavi City Court found the applicant guilty of illegally buying and concealing heroin in very large quantities, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In its judgment, the court relied on the expert report of 3 August 2005, which stated that the applicant was partially responsible for his actions. The court also found, in particular, that the applicant had tried to wrest a gun from a police officer who had been attempting to arrest him, and that he had tried to escape through the back door of the house. The intervention of the special forces and the use of force had therefore become necessary.
42.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 20 July 2006. The case file does not refer to any further developments in the criminal proceedings.
43.  On 26 April 2006 the Court, in response to the applicant’s request, invited the Government to (a) clarify why the applicant had been discharged from hospital on 20 January 2006 (see paragraph 40 above), (b) produce the documents relating to the medical care that the applicant had received in prison for his psychiatric condition and HCV and (c) provide detailed information about the conditions of his detention.
44.  The Government, who were asked to provide the above information by 8 June 2006, made no response to the Court’s request under point (a) above. They produced the entries made in the applicant’s medical file between 17 and 20 January 2006. It emerged from these that during his stay in the hospital the applicant had been irritable and that on 18 January 2006 he had been seen by doctors.
45.  As to the request for information at point (b) above, the Government submitted that on 7 June 2006 the authorities had brought three specialists from a civilian hospital and the prison hospital – a therapist, a psychiatrist and a cardiologist – to examine the applicant in prison. The specialists established that the applicant was experiencing pain in his right kidney and had difficulty urinating. The doctors decided that a urethral ultrasound would be necessary and that, if need be, an urologist could be consulted. The applicant was prescribed sedatives. For everything else, the doctors further concluded that the applicant was not suffering from psychosis at the time of the medical examination and that there was no need to prescribe any mental health treatment or to hospitalise him.
46.  As to the Court’s request under point (c), the Government submitted that the applicant was detained in Tbilisi Prison no. 7 and that the conditions of his detention satisfied the requirements of domestic law and Article 3 of the Convention (natural light, electricity, cleanliness, ventilation, adequate food, access to water, separate toilets in cells, opportunity for daily exercise, and so on). The Government claimed that whenever he needed to the applicant could freely consult the prison doctor, as the service was available at all times, day and night. They submitted that the applicant had unhindered access to his lawyer, with whom he could meet without prison guards present. Indeed, since his arrest he had met her fourteen times.
47.  In letters dated 16 June, 5 July and 19 August 2006 the applicant’s lawyer told the Court that her client had been suffering from stones in the urinary tract since 2003 and had been undergoing regular treatment at the hospital in Rustavi. The applicant’s lawyer also produced a statement by the doctor from Tbilisi Psychiatric Hospital who had monitored the applicant between 17 and 20 January 2006 in the prison hospital. The psychiatrist explained that, given the complexity of the applicant’s case, it had been impossible for him to reach a definitive diagnosis in three days.
48.  On 24 October 2006 the Chamber decided, in the light of the information set out above, to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to indicate to the Government that a medical examination, including a blood test, should be carried out on the applicant by a joint committee of medical experts. The Chamber decided to specify that the medical report requested must contain diagnoses concerning the applicant’s psychiatric condition, the type and progress of his HCV, the urethral stone and any other illness diagnosed during the examination. The Chamber also decided that, depending on the diagnoses, the Government should supply a plan of the medical treatment that the authorities planned to provide for the applicant for each of the conditions observed.
49.  On 9 November 2006, with a view to executing the Court’s decision, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal ordered a medical examination to be carried out on the applicant by a joint committee made up of two psychiatrists, two therapists and two urologists, nominated by the parties. The committee was instructed to answer the questions asked by the Court and draw up a detailed treatment plan on the basis of the diagnoses.
50.  Consequently, the applicant was transferred on 13 November 2006 to the National Forensics Bureau at the Ministry of Justice, and the joint committee began its work by ordering a blood test, a chest ultrasound scan and an electrocardiogram. The committee issued its report on 12 December 2006 (“the medical report of 12 December 2006”). Its results show that, in the psychiatrists’ opinion, the applicant was suffering from a personality disorder, compounded by a head injury and psychotic tendencies. The doctors considered that at the time of the events the applicant had been partially responsible for his actions. In their opinion, no compulsory psychiatric treatment would be necessary as an ancillary penalty in the event of a criminal conviction. The therapists concluded that the applicant had chronic viral hepatitis C with minimal activity and noted that he had previously had pulmonary tuberculosis. The urologists stated that the applicant had stones in his right kidney.
51.  A psychiatrist nominated by the defence added a separate opinion to the report, in which she stated that the applicant was suffering from a chronic stress-related disorder which, in her opinion, constituted chronic emotional disturbances complicated by drug addiction, but which did not cause dementia. Consequently, she considered that the applicant had been lucid at the time of the events and, more specifically, when he had described his arrest. From a psychiatric point of view, he was not in need of any compulsory or immediate treatment. She recommended that he consult the prison psychiatrist regularly and that he be treated with specific medication, with the psychiatrist regularly adjusting the doses.
52.  On 24 April 2007 the Government informed the Court that on 10 April 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal had held that the medical report of 12 December 2006 was not complete because did not contain a treatment plan, and had ordered a further assessment of the applicant by the same committee. As a result, the applicant had been admitted to the prison hospital.
53.  On 26 April 2007 the applicant was again placed in the prison hospital, where he underwent a number of medical examinations, including a brain tomography and a scan of the abdominal cavity. He was then prescribed antibiotics and antispasmodics for an infection in his urinary tract.
54.  On 24 May 2007 and 14 January, 11 March and 29 April 2008 the applicant was repeatedly examined by medical specialists, including a psychiatrist, dermatologist, ophthalmologist, urologist and infectiologist. He subsequently underwent medical tests, including HCV feature assessment by polymerase chain reaction, blood biochemical analysis, and a bacterioscopic examination of his sputum.
55.  The results of the above-mentioned medical consultations and examinations revealed that the applicant no longer had any mental problems, nor any urinary infections either, and that his HCV was still maintaining a moderate level of activity. The experts stated that the applicant’s overall health condition was stable and he did not require hospitalisation.
56.  Despite the above findings, the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital first for a few days from 20 October and then again on 4 November 2008 for additional examinations, so that a correct plan of treatment for his HCV could be developed. He underwent echoscopy of the internal organs, general and biochemical analysis of blood, X-ray of the thorax, and other tests. The applicant was also diagnosed at that time with bacterial bronchitis and onychomicosis (fungal infection of the nail), for which infectious disease he was duly prescribed antibiotics and other drugs; he had recovered from these by 20 November 2008.
57.  Once the inflammation in the applicant’s system had been eliminated, on 24 November 2008 the applicant started receiving anti-viral treatment for his HCV on an inpatient basis in the prison hospital. Alongside the treatment, which is known for its strong side effects, the applicant remained under the constant supervision of the medical staff of the hospital and continued undergoing blood analysis in order to have his condition monitored.
58.  On 31 December 2008 the applicant, who was still in the prison hospital at that time, was diagnosed with staphylococcus aureus, and the relevant antibiotic therapy was begun immediately under the constant supervision of an infection specialist. On 17 January 2009 the prison authority arranged for the applicant to be transferred to a civilian hospital which specialised in the treatment of sepsis. After receiving appropriate treatment there, which resulted in his system becoming clear of bacteria, the applicant was discharged from the civilian hospital back to the prison hospital on 23 January 2009.